Budget-Exempt Replacement Parts at the $2000 Challenge

In reply to sleepyhead :

Yes. There is already a $50 fine for a failed protest listed in the rules (it's been there for years), and the penalties are at the organizers discretion, but a budget increase over the limit would most likely get moved to exhibition.

I would dump the “identical” wording, in favor of a “like for like” wording with an explanation. 

The intent is to put it back in the condition it was bought. So Duster’s clutch example would NOT technically be legal, because he didn’t buy the car with a new clutch. 

If he chose to install a used one, or repurpose an old clutch off the shelf and rebuild the friction surfaces himself to attempt to provide a COMPARABLE clutch to the one he bought with the car, then it is legal. 

It is not supposed to create an improvement. It is supposed to put it back the way it was bought. 

So, if you buy a car with a good windshield, drive it for 2 years, have a tree branch fall through it, a replacement windshield is budget exempt. But if you get a discount on the purchase because the windshield is smashed and replace it as part of your daily driving because it is required for inspections, then decide to enter it in the Challenge, the windshield should be in the budget. 

Basically, what you bought is in the budget. If you bought a good windshield when you purchased, you don’t need to put a 2nd one in the budget. 

There is a side benefit...

This rule would encourage people to bring daily drivers, and better sorted cars. 

If driving the car for 2 years gives me an opportunity to work out the bugs better without a potential penalty for breakage. 

If every maintenance item needs to be in the budget, there is actually a penalty for bringing a daily driver or well sorted car. Driving becomes a risk that could break something, and then risk pushing the car over budget. 

Tom, I think either could work. Depends on what you want to encourage for editorial content. Simple budgets that are easy to explain, or driven and sorted cars that have some maintenance bugs worked out.

Make the call, write the rule. I’ll follow it. 

If that coolant hose on your POS CL car starts to swell like a dead antelope then by all means replace it.  Don't be the guy that decided to save the $8.79 because you didn't want to add it to your budget and wash the track/course down with your glycol.  It's far worse to be THAT guy than someone who doesn't add that $8.79 and just changes the damn hose.  I don't care about your coolant hose but I do care about you jamming up the event.  It isn't cheating, it's smart.

Spirit of the event folks, it's self policing.  It's not a sanctioning body for goodness sake.

Did somebody actually see someone cheating this year?   

The Insurance Industry uses the phrase LKQ (like kind and quality) when speaking of replacement parts.  

I would like to offer my services as a "the part was fine when I got it" replacement creator.  I can break nearly anything you want just by driving the car 

I think the only loophole to this rule would be something like this example. 

Say I LS swap my FC RX7, but I keep using the N/A differential that will definitely break. Then I just buy 3-4 spare diffs for when one goes bad at the challenge to save on budget because I can replace it for free. 

In reply to Andy Neuman :

"...or if the competitor knew failure was likely due to modifications."

This does little for me not actually walking out to the garage and working on my project but it DID influence me to bring the Blazer and the Panhard INTO the garage so that's a start.

Tom Suddard said:

In reply to Patrick :

Too late, it's been open for a while now, but not officially codified until now. Right now it's applied/interpreted inconsistently, which is a problem.

Regarding your 200-shot question, this sentence from the rule prevents that: "Parts may not be replaced at no budget impact under this rule if they were broken or heavily degraded when the car was purchased, or if the competitor knew failure was likely due to modifications."

Gotcha.  Like Paul said, write it and I’ll abide.  

how about the rule applies to cars that have previously competed in the challenge? that way it'd be setting it back to the vehicle's previous condition of competing and not just the previous condition/state as a non competing vehicle.

Tangent: I'd be open to a subclass of exhibition that measures cost against replacement, where say someone has a vehicle and a part gives out and there's a performance version available at a comparable pricepoint, where examples of pricing for each must be documented, can be applied. This is in a somewhat similar light as my annual budget concept for repeat entries, but done via different execution. Say someone has a 90s econobox (integra/B13 etc) and the gearbox goes, there are often time OE replacements that can be found with a limited slip from the factory. This is something that ABSOLUTELY in a major performance bonus and would need to be claimed, but oftentimes cost the same as the non performance replacement as these parts are almost exclusively available via auto recyclers at this point. Creation of said subclass would allow for vehicles that are utilized outside of the challenge to be used more without fear of grenading, while allowing for their performance potential to increase while still having a play to compete competitively within the challenge and being an ambassador for the event outside of Gainesville, and the pages of the magazine. I'll be the first to admit it's a slippery slope as struts, brake lines, hoses, poly bushings and other wear items can all be found at OE level replacement pricepoints and the objective of the competition isn't to lead to a full prep of a vehicle, which is actually why I think a subclass that allows for the rule is a better option than a blanket rule.

Tangent 2) as was brought up in the subclass thread, I'd actually love to see a 200TW rating rule for the event. As seen in tangent 1, I'm all for the continued evolution and development of cars utilized in the challenge, especially after their initial year of competing within the event, but a 200TW rule would make for a lower overhead for cost of potentially competitive entry and would hopefully increase car counts. The advantage of purple crack is real and I hate the idea that 2 teams could show up in nearly identical cars with regard to autocross potential and a team on A7s could potentially podium, while a team on starspecs or 615s could potentially miss out on top 10 based on a budget exempt part. 

 must have tread/grooves by the maker, no slicks  and there are a few available even under 200 tw.  I HAVE SLICKS but it wouldn't matter as they were  CHEEP .  REALLY NOW,  What about Generals     shave them and juice 'em, they would be good to go, or note

Has any one ever asked if they want to shod the field,  I ask this not knowing there product , but the name doesn't come up when people talk performance Tires even though they had a couple demonstrators last year.

Driven5 said:

In reply to Andy Neuman :

"...or if the competitor knew failure was likely due to modifications."

What if I just didn't do all my research and carried spare parts for a car? I can't find a single example of someone breaking an NA diff with a V8 engine, but everyone says it'll break. Would that mean any stock vehicle with a known weakness couldn't have the parts replaced? You buy a Camaro with a 12 bolt rear and the rear end gets destroyed because you make too much power, can you replace it or not? Generally they hold up for a while, like the rear end on Pat's Datsun. The rule really needs to have certain limitations.  

irish44j said:

Seems reasonable. Though seems it would be hard to prove on something. Say, for instance, a competitor buys a car and the diff is really noisy, and breaks the diff during a local autocross before Challenge, and is able to replace it with a "good" diff. Unless the competitor truthfully tells "yeah, the diff sounded like it was about to go" how can it be proven or even fairly adjucated? I mean, perfectly good-sounding diffs go bad too. 

Or sticking with the diff thing, a car is bought with a functional LSD diff. But during an autocross before the challenge, the LSD diff goes bad, since maybe the owner didn't know it was at the end of its life. Can the owner rebuild with new LSD plates? 

People can lie, Some do some won’t! 

Reasonable to assume everyone is honest until proven otherwise. 

To cheat and lie to win a modest scale event?  That person knows it even if they get away with it.  

In reply to Andy Neuman :

"Any parts replaced under this exemption must be listed on the budget sheet as exempt, with an explanation of why this failure was not expected and budgeted for in advance."

Why would an axle subjected to "too much power" getting drag launched on sticky tires not be an expected point of failure?  Just because it doesn't fail every time, doesn't mean that it failing is unexpected.

"Too much power" or "a diff that will definitely break" both have pretty obvious answers within the current verbiage. If you're trying to show how somebody can game the rule as written, you're going to need to come up with better examples.

In reply to Driven5 :

All I’m saying is at the top of our competition it would be a hard line to draw. There is always a weak point to any build expected or unexpected. 

The ground up builds would be easiest to replace anything for me. You buy two identical parts at the same price and one breaks still you only have $2000 worth of parts on the car at a given time. 

In reply to Andy Neuman :

That's not a hard line to draw at all.  By definition, the failure of the weak point is not 'unexpected'...And therefore not budget exempt.

You're right that this rule would not prevent people who are set on cheating from from doing so...Just as the current rules cannot.

In reply to Driven5 :

That to me means all failures should be counted since anything that fails was a weak point. 

I'd rule out most major driveline parts engine, transmission, driveshaft, differential or axles and struts/shocks. That only really rules out cars that are bought well, that may have had previous issues from the prior owner that weren't disclosed.   

In reply to Andy Neuman :

As I read it, this is intended as a guideline to allow reasonable accommodations for unexpected and non-performance related maintenance situations...A rule for the 'exception to the rule', as it were. Not allowing it to be situationally dependent and applied with common sense/discretion would seem to unnecessarily box it in and largely defeat the purpose.

the Vette I am building has been stripped to the bone, and every part I need for a re build will be changed to a Superior part. the vette parts are worth more than the parts used in the rebuild .

   F M V  could hurt but I have bragged about some of the scores here and that is a known dollar amount. do Vettes fit an  A M class. 
 

Andy Neuman said:

In reply to Driven5 :

All I’m saying is at the top of our competition it would be a hard line to draw. There is always a weak point to any build expected or unexpected.

I don't think the rule is supposed to cover for weak points, just stupid E36 M3 like an alternator taking a dump after the car is sorted.

Perhaps codifying this is a bad idea. 

Maybe it should just remain unwritten as it is?

By the time we include recoup items, free tires, and free brake parts, our “$2000” racers are pushing $4K (plus travel, lodging, entry fees, etc). If we keep adding to the list of stuff that is offline regarding the budget, we just keep moving further from the goal of $2000 racers. 

When I started (in 2004), tires (and all other costs) were included. 

I say no. It’s just more rules creep. 

... maybe this could be combined with the special class conversation. 

If we want to attract more new competitors, how about we get the price of a $2000 car back down to where it should be?  $2000. 

A special class with NO exemptions. Build a $2K car for $2K. Including tires. 

Maybe keep recoup. Maybe. 

SVreX said:

... maybe this could be combined with the special class conversation. 

If we want to attract more new competitors, how about we get the price of a $2000 car back down to where it should be?  $2000. 

A special class with NO exemptions. Build a $2K car for $2K. Including tires. 

Maybe keep recoup. Maybe. 

You make a  valid point about keeping the $20XX class just that with no exceptions. But I suggest one more stipulation.  

Separate the buyers class from the builders class. 

One class for those who can buy a mostly stock-ish class because they are extremely good at shopping/trading/Negotiating.

and another class where they are good at building/ constructing.